Voice Actors Reject Deal

[jeffool]

Just when you thought you were done hearing about it, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG (http://www.sag.org/)) has voted to reject (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=8858671) the recent deal they had ironed out with video game industry representatives.The deal offered by leading gaming companies including Electronic Arts Inc. and Activision Inc. offered to boost wages for voice-over and other performers by 36 percent over the life of the contract. However, the unions were unable to obtain residuals, or a share in the revenues generated by the video games they perform in.Of course earlier this month there was celebrity geek Wil Wheaton's blogpost (http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/003293.php#003293) about residuals and what SAG actually wants from game companies. What do you think?

[bapenguin]

f the actors. They don't make the games...they aren't the reason games sell. It's not like the movies where the actors are the product.

[Reanimated]

This whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Voice actors, for the most part, are a very minor contributor to a game's quality. There are MANY other things in game development that have far greater value and take FAR more work to get right. Can good voice acting make a good game better? Surely, but poor voice acting or no voice acting at all certainly isn't going to ruin a game. See: Metroid, Zelda, Mario, etc.

[VsSelf]

I think we've all suffered through enough grating "friends and family of the developers" voice acting to appreciate the huge increase in immersiveness that comes with real quality acting in games (imagine Metal Gear Solid with the voice actors from Marvel vs. Capcom). That said, this really comes down to clueless egomaniacs used to $10 million a picture wondering why that pay scale isn't universal.

[AspectVoid]

It's not as bad as it sounds. There are two guilds that the vast majority of the Voice Actors belong to, and the second guild accepted the deal, so only those VAs who solely belong to the SAG are SOL right now.

[shpanky]

Um, just because actors may be hired through SAG, does not necessarily mean they're any good. To equate SAG with the quality of a game's voice acting is inaccurate, and to equate the quality improvement of a game over whether SAG actors are working on it is just stupid.

[Reanimated]

Also, these guys are getting paid nearly 200 dollars an hour already. Fuck me sideways...

[VsSelf]

Um, just because actors may be hired through SAG, does not necessarily mean they're any good. To equate SAG with the quality of a game's voice acting is inaccurate, and to equate the quality improvement of a game over whether SAG actors are working on it is just stupid.

If you want quality acting, most people would agree that it's much more efficient to hire, say, actors than to tour the country giving passersby screen tests. Obviously the ratio of actor to good acting isn't 1:1 or anywhere near that. But if something is done by experienced professionals, its quality is statistically more assured.

[RMan]

Also, these guys are getting paid nearly 200 dollars an hour already. Fuck me sideways...
For contract work of this type, that's actually not nearly as good as it sounds. Not necessarily defending these guys, but they hardly get full time work (maybe one job a month, if that) and there is a bit of leg work that's never included in that hourly wage. Bottom line is that any short term contract work should pay considerably more than a full time job, esp. for this type of thing where the work is so scarce.

[*Legion*]

(imagine Metal Gear Solid with the voice actors from Marvel vs. Capcom).

So imagine a game with terrible voice acting with other, different terrible voice actors?

[Rafer]

Do actors "deserve" residuals from games? No. Are actors in a position to demand residuals? Well maybe. I don't think David Cross is going to starve to death if there's a strike, the worst thing that happens is that none of the developers cave in and the union decides not to pursue the residuals thing.

And another thing, aren't things like residuals used to avoid paying money? Like if an actor agrees to do a game expecting residuals, and the game flops, the developer has saved money.

[Rommel]

Real voice actors contribute a lot to what they work on. It is when they higher real actors who do not know how to do voice work that things go downhill.

[Klade]

I'm willing to bet that the dev houses tell these guys to take a hike. They probably have only been responding thus far because of a want to avoid bad publicity. They have done that so now theres no reason to persue it anymore.

I say this because 1) this isn't the only organization that has voice acting, 2) they can find very good voice actors elsewhere, 3) they will never agree to give risiduals when many of the devs involved don't get them.. only the people that own the dev house etc.

[gorlop]

What if the actors have their way and the cost makes it's way back to the consumer? Are you willing to pay $59.99 for a game so that you can hear Wil Wheaton do the voice work? I've got nothing against the guy but his voice simply isn't worth it. I know plenty of actors who could do just as well and would love to have the work.

[Kefkataran]

Metal Gear = terrible voice acting? I can think of maybe a couple examples, but for the most part the voice actors for MGS are terribly strong if anything.

[*Legion*]

You must set a very, very low bar.

[Kefkataran]

that's the thing. I really don't. Most games have horrendous voice-acting in my opinion, but MGS has some of the strongest. It's all part of Kojima's let's-make-games-like-movies deal. Again, there's a couple cases in the MGS games where I don't think this holds up, but not that many.

[darkwarrior]

Metal Gear Solid has a lot of moving and memorable moments and bad voice acting would detract from that.

Therefore, MGS != bad voice acting.
Legion = suck

And no, Actors don't deserve that kind of money. It's a different beast. A movie makes a hundred million, merchandises and THEN MAKES A GAME based on the movie and then sells DVDs. 10 million, while an insane wage for 6 months work for someone who can't even take a fall through a window or has an attitude like J LO, isn't that much for a summer blockbuster film.

For a game alone that won't have the t-shirt sales, initial screenings and then people go out and buy the game after they paid to play it at the Gamea, its a lot. 700 dollars is a lot. Its noones fault they don't get a lot of work. If work isn;t calling it isn't calling. If the opportunity isnt there, it isnt there. Why should the companies be forced to hand out a small fortune for little work (4 hours screaming is not work compared to 4 hours slaving under people you hate) when the people who put the real work in get screwed. RE2 is popular as hell but the voice acting is terrible. The game remains great.

[Kefkataran]

Thank you, Darkwarrior.

[VsSelf]

RE2 is popular as hell but the voice acting is terrible. The game remains great.

If RE2 had had exceptional voice acting, would it have improved the experience of playing the game? I think the answer is yes it would. It's a poor state of the industry when the best games completely break your concentration as soon as characters begin to speak.

Maybe we should just go back to text. I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't complain; their tentative forays into the Dolby era mostly consist of high pitched squeals.

[netcraazzy]

Good voice acting does help make a game more enjoyable, but the amount that voice acting effects the overall quality of a game is relational to how much talking is actually IN the game. RPG games like Final Fantasy can benefit a lot from good voice acting but the same can't be said for a game like Mario Kart. I think that voice actors simply do not understand that when you make a game you ALWAYS need good artists and developers, but you don't always need good voice work. Voice actors in games simply are not as important as they are in movies, TV and commercials and I think this is what the SAG is struggling to come to grips with.

[XenonCJ]

For contract work of this type, that's actually not nearly as good as it sounds. Not necessarily defending these guys, but they hardly get full time work (maybe one job a month, if that) and there is a bit of leg work that's never included in that hourly wage. Bottom line is that any short term contract work should pay considerably more than a full time job, esp. for this type of thing where the work is so scarce.Yeah.... Few working hours for lots of money... sounds horrible to me....

[VsSelf]

Final Fantasy is one game series I'd be happy to see go back to text; the series hasn't really sat right since they made the switch. For some reason Kingdom Hearts didn't bother me, probably because it wasn't aiming for (and missing) the same kind of high drama.

[mister_slim]

By the way, this isn't straight up royalties. Basically, if a game goes platinum, greatest hits, or player's choice, the VAs get another small payment. Hopefully, developers are getting the same deal, though I would guess a fair amount aren't.

[Heretic Machine]

I honestly don't give a damn about voice acting. I grew up with text on a screen, and as far as games where voice acting is used heavily these days, I'd probably rather have the text on the screen. Just my opinion, but J-RPG's have gotten even MORE unbareable ever since voice acting started to get big.

[RMan]

Yeah.... Few working hours for lots of money... sounds horrible to me....
Yea, then you really don't want to hear about what stunt actors make, thousands for 10 seconds of work.

I do think back end payments for voice actors though should not generally be done, they just aren't as big a part of the project as pretty much any other industry using voice actors (even for voice heavy games, unless it's something like "You don't know Jack", for folk that remember that one). In the end, if the game does well it's going to have anywhere between 1 and 47 sequels anyway, so just charge them more on those.